As the actual OP, I'm surprised to see my question has generated 14 pages of "discussion". No, I don't plan on using the LSAT on my resume, given the reaction I see it generated on this board. But, I would like to iterate a couple of points.

1) I was only talking about resumes sent out at this point in our legal careers (before we have any law school grades). I fully agree that once grades come out the LSAT is a meaningless number and doesn't deserve a place on your resume.

2) I think the best reason for the overall policy of not using it is not so much how you come off to law firms (I would hope attorneys at law firms are not so thin-skinned that they bristle at the sight of a test score) but that as a profession we want to keep the shelf life of an LSAT score as short as possible. If LSAT scores were fair game for resumes, everyone would either have to put it on there or have potential employers wonder why it's not there. It's in the best interest of everyone not to have it on there.

2) I think the best reason for the overall policy of not using it is not so much how you come off to law firms (I would hope attorneys at law firms are not so thin-skinned that they bristle at the sight of a test score) but that as a profession we want to keep the shelf life of an LSAT score as short as possible. If LSAT scores were fair game for resumes, everyone would either have to put it on there or have potential employers wonder why it's not there. It's in the best interest of everyone not to have it on there.

You have this all wrong. You are entirely missing the point of a resume. You don't exclude an LSAT because you fear the attorneys are thin-skinned. (Do you think we are intimidated by your score?) You exclude it because it says nothing meaningful about what you will contribute to our office. Further, including it if you weren't asked for it, demonstrates that you don't understand what we are looking for. It also suggests to many attorneys that you are immature or egotistical.

The entire purpose of a resume is to market yourself to a potential employer. Many, many people starting out in their careers see it instead as either a dumping ground for everything they have ever done, or some sort of "brag sheet." Yes, you want to portray yourself in a the most favorable light possible, but to do that you need to look at it from the perspective of the employer. There are some times where you may feel the need to include something to "be true to yourself" because you wouldn't want to work for an organization if you felt the need to "hide" part of who you are (people who are heavily involved in certain causes and they run through their work experience, for example." But I hope that your LSAT score is not "who you are." If it is and that is the reason you are including it on your resume, well, you'll wind up where you belong -- but you'll also cut yourself out of the running of a lot of jobs in the process.

Employers have already dictated that the shelf life of the LSAT is limited to the moment you choose your law school. They enforce that policy by dumping the resumes that try to squeeze more milage out of it into the trash.

latin honors definitely, or if your school called them something different, include them. maybe not gpa...i mean, the honors speak for themselves

Yeah I agree latin honors should definitely be there....I didn't mean putting GPA in addition to latin honors....but if you didn't get latin honors, would you put your GPA on there?

i have heard that you should consider putting anything over a 3.25 or so; if you did not receive honors. i do not believe there is a clear consensus on that.

however, typically i would think that while in law school there is only one gpa that counts, your current one. if we are talking about the resume you send in with the application process, its redundant because lsac provides it anyway.

latin honors definitely, or if your school called them something different, include them. maybe not gpa...i mean, the honors speak for themselves

Yeah I agree latin honors should definitely be there....I didn't mean putting GPA in addition to latin honors....but if you didn't get latin honors, would you put your GPA on there?

i have heard that you should consider putting anything over a 3.25 or so; if you did not receive honors. i do not believe there is a clear consensus on that.

however, typically i would think that while in law school there is only one gpa that counts, your current one. if we are talking about the resume you send in with the application process, its redundant because lsac provides it anyway.

I think it probably depends on whether you think it will help or hurt you, and this may depend on where you go to law school. For example, I had a GPA over 3.5, but I go to Boalt, where they put a lot of emphasis on GPA, so my undergrad GPA was only around the 25th percentile for people entering my law school. So even though it's not a *bad* GPA, it seemed like it made more sense to leave it off and let employers assume whatever they liked. I think that unless your GPA is particularly high for your school, you might just want to let your school name speak for itself.

I also think that anyone who has been out of undergrad for any amount of time or has any law school grades should probably leave it off, but that's just my opinion. It probably can't hurt if it's super-high or something, but I doubt it helps much. Employers don't seem to take it amiss if you leave it off.

I'm stuck on this undergrad GPA thing. I don't currently have it on my resume because it's relatively low and it's below the 25th percentile (3.44 I think) at my school. My major was relatively rigorous for my undergrad, but I doubt anybody would a) know or b) give a *&^% because it's still liberal arts. I've generally heard 3.5+, and it just feels weird thinking that it speaks positively of me. On the other hand, I had a 3.8 over the last 2 years, so maybe that'll change things. Decisions, decisions.

I'm stuck on this undergrad GPA thing. I don't currently have it on my resume because it's relatively low and it's below the 25th percentile (3.44 I think) at my school. My major was relatively rigorous for my undergrad, but I doubt anybody would a) know or b) give a *&^% because it's still liberal arts. I've generally heard 3.5+, and it just feels weird thinking that it speaks positively of me. On the other hand, I had a 3.8 over the last 2 years, so maybe that'll change things. Decisions, decisions.

I wouldn't include it. Your major will be on there, so if anyone happens to know it's a rigorous major at your undergrad, you'll get points for that. How would you convey the fact that you had a 3.8 over the last 2 years on a resume, anyway?